 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Queme v. IBP6/21/2005
urse of her employment. As a result of such injury, Ana was temporarily totally disabled from and including August 6 to and including August 30, but she had not yet reached MMI. The court awarded Ana 3 4/7 weeks of temporary total disability benefits based on her stipulated weekly wage of $417.66. The court also awarded past and future medical expenses, penalties, and attorney fees. The trial court recognized that if permanent disability from Ana's injury to her right hip or shoulder becomes ascertainable in the future, then a further hearing may be had.
Ana appealed the trial court's award to the Workers' Compensation Court review panel, alleging that the trial judge failed to address the issue of vocational rehabilitation and temporary partial disability and failed to award temporary total disability benefits after August 30, 2002. The review panel found that the trial court's order "impliedly" addressed the issue of vocational rehabilitation, because the trial court found that "various foundational prerequisites for an award of same were obviously absent." The review panel stated that because the trial court found that Ana incurred no permanent disability owing to her hand and forearm injury, had not reached MMI for her shoulder injury or hip injury, and reached MMI without permanent impairment as to her lower back, there was no "permanent impairment" for which vocational rehabilitation could be awarded.
As to temporary total disability and temporary partial disability, the review panel found that the trial court's order stated, "' fter August 30, 2002, [Ana's treating physician] reiterates in virtually every note that is able to work on light duty basis. The Court concludes, therefore, that is not entitled to additional temporary disability benefits' . . . ." Thus, the review panel found that the trial court addressed the issue of temporary total and temporary partial disability by using the "all-encompassing language 'temporary disability benefits.'" Therefore, the review panel affirmed the trial court's award in all respects. Ana timely appeals to this court.
IV. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Ana contends that the trial court erred in (1) not complying with Workers' Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 11 (2004), because the trial court's award did not address vocational rehabilitation or temporary partial disability benefits, and (2) failing to award temporary total disability benefits after August 30, 2002. And, she asserts that "the review panel erred by affirming the trial court's Award."
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers' Compensation Court decision only when (1) the compensation court acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order, judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation court do not support the order or award. Misek v. CNG Financial, 265 Neb. 837, 660 N.W.2d 495 (2003).
Upon appeal to a Workers' Compensation Court review panel, the findings of fact made by a Workers' Compensation Court trial judge are not to be disturbed unless they are clearly wrong on the evidence or the decision was contrary to law. Hemmerling v. Happy Cab Co., 247 Neb. 919, 530 N.W.2d 916 (1995). The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to testimony. Aken v. Nebraska Methodist Hosp., 245 Neb. 161, 511 N.W.2d 762 (1994).
In determining whether to affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Cour
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|